Skip to main content

Full text of "Radiative and semi-leptonic B-meson decay spectra: Sudakov resummation beyond logarithmic accuracy and the pole mass"

See other formats


Preprint typeset in JHEP style - PAPER VERSION 



Cavendish-HEP-04/12 



Radiative and semi-leptonic B-meson decay spectra: 
Sudakov resummation beyond logarithmic accuracy 
and the pole mass 



Einan Gardi 

Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge 
Madingley Road, Cambridge, CBS OHE, UK 



Abstract: The inclusive spectra of radiative and semi-leptonic B-meson decays near the 
endpoint is computed taking into account renormalons in the Sudakov exponent (Dressed 
Gluon Exponentiation). In this framework we demonstrate the factorization of decay spec- 
tra into hard, jet and soft functions and discuss the universality of the latter two. Going 
beyond perturbation theory the soft function, which we identify as the longitudinal mo- 
mentum distribution in an on-shell b quark, is replaced by the b-quark distribution in 
the B meson. The two differ by power corrections. We show how the resummation of 
running-coupling effects can be used to perform consistent separation to power accuracy 
between perturbative and non-perturbative contributions. In particular, we prove that the 
leading infrared renormalon ambiguity in the Sudakov exponent cancels against the one 
associated with the definition of the pole mass. This cancellation allows us to identify 
the non-perturbative parameter that controls the shift of the perturbative spectrum in the 
heavy-quark limit as the mass difference between the meson and the quark. 



Keywords: Inclusive B decay, Renormalons, Heavy quark effective theory, Factorization. 



Contents 



1. Introduction 1 

2. B — ► X s j decay 5 

2.1 Perturbation theory 6 

2.1.1 A renormalon calculation 6 

2.1.2 Borel representation of the Sudakov exponent 8 

2.1.3 Factorization into soft, jet and hard subprocesses 9 

2.1.4 Matching to fixed logarithmic accuracy and fixed-order calculations 11 

2.1.5 Principal value vs. fixed logarithmic accuracy 12 

2.2 Power corrections 14 

2.2.1 The shape function 14 

2.2.2 HQET and the OPE 15 

2.2.3 Cancellation of the u = 1/2 renormalon 19 

3. Semi-leptonic decay 22 

4. Conclusions 25 

A. Extracting singular terms in B — ► X s ^ 27 

B. Renormalon calculation of the semi-leptonic decay spectrum 27 

B.l A renormalon calculation 27 

B.2 Extracting singular terms 29 

B.2.1 Jet function 30 

B.2. 2 Soft function 31 



1. Introduction 

Inclusive B-meson decay processes, such as the semi-leptonic process B — ► X u l~vi and 
the rare B — ► X s -f process, attract much attention in the recent years [1-27]. This is 
primarily because of the availability of increasingly accurate experimental data and the role 
of these decays in determining the parameters of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) 
matrix as well as their potential in accessing physics beyond the standard model. Owing to 
experimental constraints, measurement are usually restricted to certain kinematical regions 
so the theoretical prediction of differential decay distributions is invaluable. 

The inclusive nature of the measurement and the fact that the 6-quark mass (m) is 
large compared to the QCD scale (A) guarantee infrared safety. Consequently, the b-quark 



- 1 - 



decay spectra are calculable in perturbative QCD. On the other hand, the fact that the 
b quark is part of a bound state has a significant impact on the spectra. It has been 
understood long ago that the relevant non-perturbative information is contained in the 
longitudinal-momentum distribution of the b quark in the B meson [13]. However, the 
limited understanding of the properties of this distribution has been a major stumbling 
block in developing precision phenomenology. 

The theoretical description of the spectra is particularly challenging near the endpoints, 
i.e. near maximal photon energy in B — ► Xtf, or near maximal charged-lepton energy in 
semi-leptonic decays. Describing the spectra in terms of x = 2E/M, where E is the photon 
(or charged-lepton) energy in the B rest frame and M is the meson mass, the endpoint 
corresponds to the x — ► 1 limit. It turns out that the x ~ 1 region is experimentally 
important. This is so, in particular, for the B — ► X u l~vi decay which can be accurately 
measured only beyond the B — ► X c l~vi threshold. 

Kinematic constrains imply that near the endpoints the hadronic final state has large 
energy, O(M), but small invariant mass, 0(My/l — x). Furthermore, radiation off the 
heavy quark has typical transverse momenta of order M(l — x). Since the quark is confined 
in a meson this radiation is physically inseparable from interaction with the light degrees 
of freedom in the meson. Thus, the binding of the heavy quark, its kinetic energy as well 
as other properties of the bound state are probed at large x where 1 — x ~ C(A/M). 

At the perturbative level, the constrained real-emission phase space at large x is re- 
flected in appearance of Sudakov logs, ln(l — x). Such large corrections appear owing to 
the singularity of the parton-branching probability in the soft and the collinear limits. As 
a consequence, any fixed-order perturbative result diverges in the x — > 1 limit although 
the physical distribution vanishes there. All-order resummation of the logarithmically- 
enhanced terms is therefore essential to recover the qualitative behaviour of the distribu- 
tion near the endpoint. Sudakov resummation can indeed be performed using the standard 
tools of QCD factorization [28-35], which is based on identifying within the multi-scale 
physical distribution separate subprocesses each described by a function of a single phys- 
ical scale. Specifically, in inclusive decays there are three subprocesses: hard, jet and soft 
that are described by functions of M, My/1 — x and M(l — x), respectively. Resummation 
of the logarithms is then achieved by solving perturbative evolution equations for these 
functions [14]. 

It is clear, however, that enhanced corrections appear also non-perturbatively. While 
for moderate x power corrections appear on the scale M, which is significantly larger than 
the QCD scale A, at large x there are enhanced corrections depending on the jet mass 
scale, My/1 — x, and, most importantly, on the soft scale, Mil — x). Since, in the region 
of interest, the latter is of the order of the QCD scale, one deals here with an infinite set of 
power corrections, which can be summed up into a non-perturbative shape function [11,14]. 

Much theoretical work has already been done on inclusive B-decay spectra [1-27]. 
Most recent investigations [26,27] have been based on the so-called soft collinear effective 
theory [36-40], by which factorization is implemented at the level of fields. Despite this 
progress there are certain theoretical questions that remain open and limit the prospects of 
precision phenomenology. This includes, in particular, the question of how to systematically 



- 2 - 



separate between perturbative and non-perturbative corrections on the soft scale. The 
present work is a step in resolving this question. 

The crucial observation is that for infrared and collinear safe observables in general, 
and for B-decay spectra in particular, the separation between perturbative and non- 
perturbative contributions should be based on power accuracy. This stands in contrast 
with the commonly used collinear factorization, which applies for example to structure 
functions in deep inelastic scattering, where the separation is based on logarithmic accu- 
racy. In fact, when considering the decay spectrum near the endpoint, there is no effective 
way to perform logarithmic separation. Such separation would have only been effective 
had there been a large gap between M(l — x) and A such that one could have chosen a 
factorization scale fi which satisfies A <C n <C M(l — x). In the region of interest the 
soft function receives perturbative and non-perturbative contributions from roughly the 
same momentum scales. The perturbative contributions correspond to gluon radiation off 
the heavy quark, radiation that peaks at transverse momentum k± ~ m(l — x). The 
perturbative soft function describes the longitudinal-momentum distribution of a (slightly 
off-shell) b quark inside an on-shell b quark. The non-perturbative contribution amounts 
to power-suppressed corrections which distinguish the latter from the b-quark distribution 
inside a B meson. Note that although the on-shell b quark is not an asymptotic state - 
the full quark propagator has no pole — the b-quark distribution in an on-shell b quark 
is well defined to any order in perturbation theory 1 . The price one eventually pays for 
dealing with a non-physical object, the on-shell quark, is parametrically small: it is the 
power-suppressed ambiguity in the sum of perturbation theory. 

This distinction between the QCD analysis of infrared and collinear safe observables 
and the standard, collinear factorization can be formulated also in terms of evolution. 
Collinear factorization is based on computing the anomalous dimension perturbatively and 
then supplementing the evolution equation by a purely non-perturbative initial condition. 
On the other hand for infrared and collinear safe observables one computes perturbatively 
also the initial condition and the role of non-perturbative corrections is restricted to mod- 
ifying this initial condition by power terms. 

Our plan is to extend the concept of large-x factorization and the resulting Sudakov 
resummation beyond any logarithmic accuracy. In order to explain how this is done, let 
us first recall the standard implementation of Sudakov resummation, e.g. [16,20,21], and 
examine its limitations. It is worthwhile stressing already now that these limitations are 
not the consequence of a specific mathematical procedure, but instead, they are inherent 
to the logarithmic accuracy criterion. 

It is convenient to formulate Sudakov resummation in moment space; see Eq. (2.8) 
below for a definition. The moment index N is the Mellin conjugate variable to x, so 
large moments become increasingly sensitive to the interesting x — ► 1 limit. Owing to 
momentum conservation contributions of different subprocesses at large x are simply writ- 
ten as a product in moment space. Furthermore, the factorization property of soft and 

1 This object is infrared and collinear safe, so the only singularities which do not cancel between real- 
emission and virtual diagrams are ultraviolet (singularities that cancel out when the soft function is com- 
bined with the other subprocesses building up the observable decay spectrum). 



-3- 



collinear matrix elements implies that the soft subprocess (and likewise the jet) can be 
written in moment space as an exponential. The standard approach to Sudakov resumma- 
tion is based on computing the moment-space exponent to a fixed logarithmic accuracy, 
usually next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy, thus resumming terms of the form a™ ln k N 
where k = n + 1 (leading logs — LL) as well as k = n (next-to-leading logs — NLL) 
in the exponent. This contribution can be summed over n to all orders, yielding a well- 
defined function. Nevertheless, this function has unphysical poles (Landau singularities) 
at N ~ 0(m/A). When converting the resummed series back to x space these poles lead 
to large fluctuations at large x. The perturbative result is then unstable with respect to 
higher-order corrections 2 for x values between the peak and the endpoint. 

While the moment-space perturbative result is well defined at any given logarithmic 
accuracy, the corrections owing to subleading logarithms (that are neglected) are large. 
Because of the sensitivity of the contributing diagrams to small momenta, subleading log- 
arithms k < n have larger numerical coefficients which eventually break the hierarchy on 
which the perturbative expansion is based. This is a result of infrared renormalon contribu- 
tions to the Sudakov exponent [41]. Similarly to other perturbative series in QCD [42,43], 
owing to infrared renormalons the Sudakov exponent is non-Borel-summable. Upon sum- 
ming the perturbative expansion with no restriction on the logarithmic accuracy (i.e. on 
n — k) the exponent develops power-suppressed ambiguities. In this way resummation of 
running-coupling effects leads to identifying power-like ambiguities in the moment -space 
exponent opening up the possibility to perform separation at power accuracy between 
perturbative and non-perturbative corrections. 

The appearance of renormalons in the Sudakov exponent is not special to B-decay 
spectra but is rather common to a wide range of QCD distributions near kinematic thresh- 
olds. The Dressed Gluon Exponentiation (DGE) approach deals with this situation by 
performing a renormalon calculation of the Sudakov exponent, defining it by an appro- 
priate regularization prescription, such as the principal value of the Borel integral, and 
finally parametrizing non-perturbative corrections to the moment-space exponent based 
on the parametric form of the ambiguity. It is worth noting that, contrary to any fixed- 
logarithmic-accuracy resummation, the principal-value regularization of the Sudakov ex- 
ponent has no Landau singularities. Existing applications of DGE range from event-shape 
distributions in the two-jet limit [41,44], through deep inelastic structure functions at large 
Bjorken x [45-47], to the heavy-quark fragmentation function [48] which is closely related 
to B decay. 

Aiming at power accuracy we begin our perturbative analysis of decay spectra by 
performing resumming of running-coupling effects. In practice the calculation is done, as 
in other applications, with a single dressed gluon, i.e. to leading order in the large-/?o limit. 
We exponentiate the x — ► 1 singular terms in moment space, identify the renormalon 
ambiguity of the Sudakov exponent and define the sum of the series by the principal value 

2 Moreover, the Landau pole makes the Mellin integral ambiguous (integration-contour dependent). This 
ambiguity should not be confused with the renormalon ambiguity (to be discussed below) which presents 
itself already when resumming the series in moment space. Nevertheless, it does provide an indication of 
the inapplicability of perturbation theory in the region m(l — x) ~ A. 



- 4 - 



of the Borel integral, a choice that also defines the non-perturbative correction. 

In the b-quark distribution analyzed here, much like the heavy-quark fragmentation 
function [48-50], the ambiguity of the Sudakov exponent corresponds to powers of NA/m. 
The ambiguity implies the existence of genuine non-perturbative corrections to the ex- 
ponent of a similar parametric form. Independently of how these power corrections are 
parametrized, as soon as they become important the renormalon ambiguities of the Su- 
dakov exponent cannot be ignored. From this perspective it is hard to interpret any 
phenomenological description of the non-perturbative b-quark distribution in the B meson 
which does not take into account the renormalons. 

Deeper understanding the b-quark distribution function requires establishing the can- 
cellation of ambiguities between its perturbative and non-perturbative ingredients. This 
separation is ambiguous because it is based on the concept of an on-shell heavy quark. 
Using the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) [51, 52] we show that the leading power 
correction, of order NA/M, cancels between the perturbative Sudakov exponent and non- 
perturbative corrections involving the quark pole mass [53-58]. Defining both the Sudakov 
exponent and the pole mass by the same prescription (e.g. principal value of the Borel 
sum) the parameter that controls the corresponding non-perturbative effect on the spec- 
trum — a shift — is uniquely identified. The final result is independent of the prescription 
used. This extends the previous result on cancellation of renormalon ambiguities in the 
total decay width [56] to the level of differential decay spectra. 

The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we consider the radiative 
B — ► Xgj decay spectrum, present the perturbative DGE result for the moments and 
then consider in some detail the power-like separation between perturbative and non- 
perturbative contributions to the b-quark distribution. In particular, we identify the rele- 
vant non-perturbative parameters using the HQET and prove the cancellation of the first 
infrared renormalon ambiguity. Although we refer specifically to the radiative decay, the 
analysis of the b-quark distribution is general: it applies to other inclusive decays as well. 
In section 3, we turn to the semi-leptonic decay spectrum focusing on the analogy and 
differences with the radiative decay. Appendix B gives some more details of the corre- 
sponding renormalon calculation where the soft and jet functions are computed separately. 
Section 4 is reserved for conclusions. 

2. B — ► X s 7 decay- 
In this section we address perturbative and non-perturbative aspects of the energy spec- 
trum in the radiative B decay, B — ► X s ~j. We begin by computing the photon energy 
distribution to all orders in the large-/?o limit. This is done by performing the one-loop 
calculation with a Borel-modified gluon propagator. Next we focus on the endpoint region, 
first in perturbation theory and then beyond. In section 2.1.1 we compute the Sudakov 
exponent in moment space. We then show (section 2.1.3) that this result is consistent 
with factorization into hard, jet and soft functions, and match the DGE result with NLL 
accuracy and with the full 0{a s ) result (section 2.1.4). To end the perturbative part we 
demonstrate in section 2.1.5 the divergence of the Sudakov exponent and analyse the differ- 



- 5 - 



ence between truncation at fixed logarithmic accuracy and principal-value resummation. 
Non-perturbative aspects are discussed in section 2.2, beginning, in section 2.2.1, with 
precise identification of the relevant power corrections (the shape function) through the 
moment-space ratio between the quark distribution in a meson and the one in an on-shell 
heavy quark. In section 2.2.2 we identify the first few parameters that control power cor- 
rections in the heavy-quark limit using the HQET and finally, in section 2.2.3, we prove 
the cancellation of the leading renormalon ambiguity. 

Let us first define the kinematics. We denote the inclusive differential B — ► X s ^f 
decay rate by V, and define 

x = 2p~ r p B /M 2 , 

where p 7 and ps are the photon and B-meson momentum, respectively (p 2 = 0, p 2 B = M 2 ). 
In the B rest frame x represents the photon energy fraction: x = 2E 1 /M. 

The short-distance electroweak physics responsible for the decay can be integrated out 
yielding an effective Hamiltonian description which involves eight operators of dimension 
five and six [1]. Calculation of the corresponding coefficient functions, the evolution from 
T^-mass scale to the 6-quark mass scale, and perturbative evaluation of the matrix elements 
shows that the B — ► X s j decay is dominated by the following magnetic operator [4,15,18]: 

H = V2G F V tb V t * s A(m 2 /m 2 w ) ^ s L a^b R F^ v , (2.1) 

where is the photon field strength. The contribution of this particular operator is 
singled out by being singular in the x — ► 1 limit in which we are interested. Therefore, in 
the following we only consider this operator. We would like to emphasise that a complete 
analysis needed for phenomenology would have to take into account other operators 3 as 
well. There, however, the standard perturbative treatment is likely to be sufficient. 

2.1 Perturbation theory 

2.1.1 A renormalon calculation 

Referring to the B meson as if it were a free on-shell b quark, the inclusive distribution 
in x is infrared and collinear safe, so it can be computed perturbatively in QCD. At 
the perturbative level the scaling variable x becomes 2p 7 • p/m 2 where p is the b-quark 
momentum and m is the pole mass, p 2 = m 2 . A calculation of the real-emission cuts with 
a single dressed gluon yields the following distribution: 

__ = ( 1 + 0(a, M l -x, + 5 £/ o iuT ( u) (-,) *(,,„) (2,2) 

with 

B(x,u) = e cu x 3 {1 - x)' u / daa{l-a)- u x (2.3) 

7™ Jq 

1 A , 2 (l-a) 2 \ 1-a 2 1 1 

-7T 1 - 4a + a 2 - — + H 1 , 

1 1 — xaY \ 1 — u J (1 — xa)(l — u) 1 — x 1 — xa 1 — x\ 

3 It has been shown [4, 15, 18] that the contribution of operators other than Eq. (2.1) is suppressed at 

large a; by a power of (1 — a;), making it unimportant for x ^ 0.9. In the region 0.9 <; x <; 0.7 these operators 

lead to moderate corrections; see e.g. Fig. 2 in [18]. At smaller-x values (the tail of the spectrum) the 

magnetic operator of Eq. (2.1) ceases to dominate. 



- 6 - 



where A is in the MS scheme and c = 5/3. 

To arrive at this result we computed the imaginary part of the three one-loop diagrams 
of Fig. 1 with a Borel-modified gluon propagator, 

1 (A 2 ) u 



-k 2 (—k 2 ) 1+u ' 

Integrating over the Borel parameter u is equivalent to resumming a gauge-invariant set 
of diagrams with a single dressed gluon to all orders. The set of diagrams is defined by 
evaluating the running coupling at the scale of the gluon virtuality, 

and it reduces to the insertion of an arbitrary number of fermion loops in the large-A^j 
limit; see e.g. [43]. Here (5q is the leading-order coefficient of the (5 function, 

= -f3 (a s M 2 - fciasM 3 + ... Po = ^C A - |iV> , (2.5) 

and the exponential factor e cu in Eq. (2.3) originates in the renormalization of the fermion 
loop in the MS scheme. Throughout this paper we shall be using the scheme-invariant 
formulation [59] of the Borel transform. In the large-/?o limit (one-loop running coupling) 
T(u) = 1. This function is introduced here so that the running coupling can be considered 
beyond one loop, e.g. truncating Eq. (2.5) at two loops one has: 

where 8 = fix / 0q 

In Eq. (2.3) the terms in the square brackets are written as they appear from individual 
diagrams in the Feynman gauge. The first two terms corresponds to gluon emission from 
the b quark prior to its decay (diagram I) , the last (fourth) term to gluon emission from the 
strange quark in the final state (diagram III) and the third term to interference between 
the two amplitudes (diagram II). 






Heavy Heavy' 

(I) (ID On) 

Figure 1: The three one-loop diagrams contributing to the squared decay matrix element of a 
heavy quark (thick line) into a light quark (horizontal, thin line). 



-7- 



Upon expanding the Borel integrand near u = to leading order (C(n )), Eq. (2.2) 
reproduces the known 0(a s ) real-emission contribution to this process (cf. [15]), 



' f/J (1 + 0(a s ))5(l - x) 



-Ttotai dx 

< ... ' / O \ T ! - I ' 



2vr 



( 2 \ , ,71 71 

( 1+a;+ T^J ln(1 -^-2i-^ + 2 + r- 



X 



(2.7) 



Beyond this order Eq. (2.2) resums running-coupling effects to all orders in perturbation 
theory in a scheme invariant manner. In particular, renormalization-scale dependence is 
avoided. With T(u) = 1 this resummation comprises at any order n of the terms of the form 
CfPq(x™ +1 . Using T{u) this resummation is generalized to include the effects of subleading 
corrections to the running of the coupling. 

2.1.2 Borel representation of the Sudakov exponent 

The most striking feature of the B — ► X s ~f distribution is that it peaks close to the end- 
point x ~ 1, and yet vanishes at x = 1. In perturbation theory this is a consequence of 
Sudakov suppression [14]. At Born level the distribution is just a delta function at x = 1, 
so the main effect of subleading corrections is to smear this peak. 

As Eq. (2.7) shows, singular terms at x — ► 1 appear in perturbation theory from both 
real emission and virtual corrections. The latter are proportional to 5(1 — x). Real and 
virtual terms are related in such a way that upon averaging the distribution (with any 
finite resolution) a finite result is obtained. In practice it is most useful to consider the 
normalized moments 

M N = C dx J-^>-\ M 1 = 1, (2.8) 

JO total 

because in moment space factorization of contributions from different parts of phase space 
takes the form of a product. 

In order to compute the Sudakov exponent we first extract from Eq. (2.2) the divergent 
(logarithmically enhanced) terms — see Appendix A — obtaining: 

__ = (1 + 0(a , M1 _ x) + _^ ■«(„)(-,) e» X (2.9) 
1(1 - «) (1 - z)- 1 - 2 ' "(- + 7^ + *^-) — <!" 

U \U 1 — U 2 — U J 7TU 

The corresponding perturbative sum contains all the x — ► 1 singular terms which are 
associated with the running coupling in the single-dressed-gluon approximation, to any 
logarithmic accuracy. In Eq. (2.9) we clearly identify the two scales which were anticipated 
in the introduction: the soft scale m 2 (l — x) 2 , corresponding to typical transverse momen- 
tum of gluon radiation off the heavy quark, and the jet scale m 2 (l — x), corresponding to 
the invariant mass of the unresolved jet in the final state. Dynamics on both these scales 
generate Sudakov logs. 



-8- 



Next we consider the photon energy moments defined by Eq. (2.8). Sudakov logarithms 
exponentiate in moment space as: 

M P N T = C N (a s (m 2 )) exp {g- J™ duT{u) (^\ e cu x (2.10) 

' 2 -{l - u) T{-2u) (iV 2 « - 1) - (1 + J- + - J_) ™ T(-n) (AT" - 1) 1 ), 

where CN(a s (m 2 )) represents contributions which are finite for N — ► oo. Contributions 
to the Sudakov exponent associated with the soft and the jet subprocesses are easily dis- 
tinguished based on their parametric dependence on N. 

The exponentiation of logarithms to any logarithmic accuracy unavoidably implies 
that power corrections also exponentiate: infrared renormalons in the Sudakov exponent 
appear, as usual, upon integrating over x near the endpoint. This occurs in both subpro- 
cesses: power corrections on the scale m(l — x) ~ m/N are related to the radiation that 
accompanies a heavy quark, while those on m 2 (l — x) ~ m 2 /N to the formation of the jet 
in the final state. Thus, power suppressed ambiguities scaling as integer powers of NA/m 
and NA 2 /m 2 are part of the perturbative Sudakov exponent. These power-suppressed 
ambiguities must cancel with corresponding ambiguities in the non-perturbative function. 
This suggests that the physical moments of Eq. (2.8) can be expressed as 

M N = M£ T x M^ p , (2.11) 

and that the function M^ P itself takes a form which is similar to the ambiguities 4 . Reading 
in Eq. (2.10) the residues of the soft scale, one can write an ansatz for the non-perturbative 
soft function without even considering its physical origin: 

M»^ P {-^-^^) 3 - £1 (^) 4 ..}, (, 12) 

where we introduced a non-perturbative (at this point ambiguous) parameter = Oil) 
for each Borel pole in the perturbative exponent. Note the absence of the second power of 
[N — 1)A/M in this ansatz owing to the vanishing of the corresponding residue. As in the 
perturbative Sudakov exponent we neglected here terms that are suppressed by a relative 
power of 1/N (or, equivalently, A/M). In section 2.2 we shall return to consider power 
corrections on the soft scale from a different perspective. 

2.1.3 Factorization into soft, jet and hard subprocesses 

Exponentiation is a direct consequence of factorization, and it can be derived (see e.g. [33]) 
as the solution of renormalization group equations for the separate subprocesses. Indeed 
Eq. (2.10) is consistent with the general factorization formula of Ref. [14]. The dependence 
of the different terms in Eq. (2.10) on N suggest the following separation: 

M^ T = C N (a s (m 2 ))S N {m 2 -^ 2 ) J N (m 2 ; fi 2 ). (2.13) 



4 This idea is the basis for the renormalon approach to power corrections [42,43]. 



-9- 



where 



A 2 \" 
- I x 



n < 2 2^ ( Cp f du ( A 

S N (m 2 ; fi 2 ) =exp\-f — T(u) — , 
I Po Jo u \m 2 J 

B s (u)T(-2u) (N 2u - 1) + B A {u)\nN j, 



(2.14) 



with 



and 



B s (u) = e cu (1 - u) +O(l//3o), 



J N (m 2 ;n 2 



(C F f°°du 
= exp <^ — / — T(u) 
I Po Jo u 

Bj{u)T{-u) {N u - 1) - 



with 



Bj{u) 



1 



1 



+ 



1 — u 2 — u 



A 2 



m 



sm7rn 



TTU 



(2.15) 



(2.16) 



(2.17) 



Here CAr(o; s (m 2 )) is the hard function, ^(m 2 ;^ 2 ) the soft function and J^{m 2 ]^ 2 ) the 
jet function. As usual, the price of the separation into subprocesses is the dependence of 
each of the functions on the factorization scheme and scale (/J, 2 ). To make the soft and 
the jet functions well defined (the corresponding integrand free of 1/u singularity) we have 
added and subtracted a term proportional to 

B A (u)]nN = {l + cu + 0{u 2 ))\nN, 

which is the Borel representation of the cusp anomalous dimension [32,60]. This function 
is free of renormalons in MS-like schemes. The resulting dependence on the scale is 



dlnSN(m 2 ; /r) din J N (m 2 ; /r) Cp 



din fi 2 



dln/i 2 



Po 
C F 



InN x 



duT(u) 



A 2 



B A (u) 



= — InN x T cuap (a s (n 2 )). 
Po 



(2.18) 



The specific factorization we made is natural because it implies normalization of the 
separate soft and jet functions to unity, SN=i{m 2 ; y?) = 1 and JN=i{ r m 2 ]^ 2 ) = 1, inde- 
pendently of the factorization scale pL 2 . Related features are reflected in Eq. (2.18): (1) 
the logarithmic derivatives of In Sn and In Jn with respect to [i 2 depend on fj 2 and on the 
QCD scale A 2 only through the coupling; and (2) the hard function does not depend on 
the factorization scale. 

Factorization similar to Eq. (2.13) was already introduced in [47,48] in the application 
of DGE to other physical processes. In fact, Eq. (2.10) as a whole is identical to that of 
the single heavy hadron inclusive cross section in e + e~ annihilation, eq. (60) in [48], upon 
replacing the center-of-mass energy q, which sets the scale of hard and jet functions in 
the production process, by m. The relation between the two processes is that of crossing: 



- 10 - 



the b quark is in the initial state in the decay process while it is in the final state in 
the production process of [48]. The jet function, Eq. (2.16), is also identical to the one 
controlling the large-x limit of deep inelastic structure functions, see Eq. (15) in [47]. 

The unusual feature of the factorization formula of Eq. (2.13) is that the soft function 
as well as the jet function depend not only on their natural scale, m/N and m/y/N, 
respectively, but also on the hard scale m which plays the role of a physical ultraviolet cutoff. 
Strictly speaking this violates the idea of factorization, but this violation is unimportant 
as it does not affect the universality of these functions. As a consequence, however, the 
evolution equations of Eq. (2.18) differ from the ones derived in Ref. [14] based on infrared 
factorization. For the same reason the functions Sw^m 2 ; // 2 ) and JAr(m 2 ; // 2 ) do not directly 
correspond to the functions defined in the effective theory approach [26,27,36-40]. Strict 
factorization can be implemented at the price of having either a A-dependent or a fi— 
dependent anomalous dimensions and loosing the natural, /U-independent normalization of 
the functions. 

2.1.4 Matching to fixed logarithmic accuracy and fixed order calculations 

The calculation presented in the previous section considered only running-coupling effects. 
However, beyond the leading logarithmic accuracy the Sudakov exponent gets contributions 
from other diagrams having different color factors. 

In order to comply with full next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy (NLL) two modi- 
fications of the large-^o-hmit result are needed. First, as mentioned above the coupling 
needs to be promoted to run according to the two-loop (3 function, Eq. (2.5). We do this 
using T{u) of Eq. (2.6). 

In addition new NLL terms appear, which are related to the next-to-leading order 
term in the cusp anomalous dimension, affecting both subprocesses in Eq. (2.10): 



1 1 

u u 



3 12 J & 



(2.19) 



These corrections can be included by modifying c, which equals 5/3 in the large-/?o limit, 
and replacing it by 

5 (I vr 2 \ C A 



c - + {i-u)t- (2 ' 20) 

It should be emphasized that promoting the result to comply with NLL accuracy in this 
particular way is not a result of higher-order renormalon calculation; this manipulation is 
arbitrary as far as the functional dependence on u is concerned. The related theoretical 
uncertainty concerns both subleading logarithms (NNLL and beyond) and power correc- 
tions. For discussion of this issue in the context of deep inelastic structure functions at 
large Bjorken x, see [47]. Here we do not investigate this issue further. 

Next, the full, fixed-order 0(a s ) result can be matched by determining CN(a s (m 2 )) 
in Eq. (2.10) to this order. In principle, such matching can be done at any order. For 
example, following the so-called log-R matching scheme [31], one can write: 

InCVMm 2 )) = lnM^\ 0(as) - lnM£ T | 0(Qs)log , (2.21) 



- 11 - 



where ^ is the full 0(a s ) correction 5 which includes logarithmically-enhanced 

terms, constant terms as well as terms that are suppressed at large N, while ^K]v T lo(a s ) log 
contains just the logarithmically-enhanced terms at 0(a s ) which are subtracted to avoid 
double counting with the resummed Sudakov exponent. It should be noted that there is 
no unique way to perform matching: non-logarithmic terms beyond the order for which 
the full fixed-order result is known can vary. 
The explicit result for CV(a s (m 2 )) is: 



C N (a s (m 2 )) = l+ C " K 



2tt 



+ 1) (*(iV)+ 7E ) + f 1 (iV)-^ 



2 N(N + 1) NJ v v 1 1 ' v ' 6 
2 _31 _9_ __L 1_ _L_ _L_ 

^>{N)+ 1E ) 6 + 2AT + (AT + i)2 N + 2 2N + 2 + N 2 

ln 2 (iV) + 2 lE \ ln(iV) X+O {a 2 s ) . (2.22) 

Together with Eq. (2.10) (or Eq. (2.13)) this completes the perturbative calculation of the 
radiative decay moments. 

2.1.5 Principal value vs. fixed logarithmic accuracy 

The soft scale, m/N, becomes of order of the QCD scale A for moments N ~ 20. This 
regime is certainly non-perturbative. However, even at much lower moments the ratio 
between these scales is not so large and power corrections can be comparable to perturbative 
ones. In these circumstances parametrization of power corrections on the scale m/N is 
unavoidable. 

It is a general phenomenon in QCD that owing to infrared renormalons the perturbative 
sum is ambiguous and consistent separation of power terms requires definition of this sum. 
This is true in particular for the Sudakov exponent, where the renormalon factorial increase 
is carried by subleading logarithms [41]. 

Sudakov logs are usually computed to fixed logarithmic accuracy. However, when 
power corrections on the same scale are important the logarithmic accuracy criterion be- 
comes inappropriate. Separating between perturbative and non-perturbative terms requires 
then power accuracy. The large-/?o calculation presented above probes the large-order 
asymptotic behaviour of the perturbative expansion allowing one to introduce power-like 
separation between perturbative and non-perturbative contributions to the Sudakov expo- 
nent. 

Let us now return to the moments defined in Eq. (2.8). By perturbative considera- 
tions we deduced that M/v = MJ^ x Mj^ p , where the perturbative contribution, Eq. (2.10), 
was calculated while the non-perturbative one, Eq. (2.12), parametrized. Each of the two 
contributions suffers from renormalon ambiguities which cancel in the product. The sepa- 
ration between and M^ p is a matter of convention. We implement this separation by 



5 This term is extracted from Eq. (2.2) by expanding the Borel integrand to leading order in u, obtaining 
Eq. (2.7), and then converting to moment space using the "plus" prescription by which virtual terms 
proportional to 5(1 — x) are determined by the normalization condition Mi = 1. 



- 12 - 



a principal-value regularization of the Borel integral in Eq. (2.10). The Borel regulariza- 
tion is equivalent in principle to a hard cutoff on some Euclidean momentum integral [61] 
but it is more convenient in practice. 

In Fig. 2 the principal-value regularization is compared with truncation at fixed loga- 
rithmic accuracy. While at low moments the principal-value regularization is numerically 

1.0 
0.8 
0.6 
0.4 
0.2 
0.0 

5 10 15 20 

N 

Figure 2: The (normalized) moments Mm of the photon spectrum as a function of N, as computed 
through Eq. (2.10), where C/v(a s (m 2 )) is given by Eq. (2.22). The full line is the principal-value 
Borel sum. Dashed, dotdash and dotted lines correspond to truncation of the Sudakov exponent at 
increasing logarithmic accuracy - the uppermost line is LL, then NLL, etc. 

close to NNLL truncation, at higher iV it approaches NLL and then LL, and finally crosses 
even the LL result developing milder slope at high N. This behaviour is in one-to-one 
correspondence with the fact that as N increases, the perturbative expansion for the ex- 
ponent breaks down earlier. It should be emphasized that when the exponent is written at 
fixed logarithmic accuracy (NLL and beyond) it suffers from Landau singularities. This is 
not the case for the principal-value Borel sum [48] which extrapolates smoothly to high-iV 
values. 

Note that the NNLL and further subleading logarithms are not computed exactly but 
are only estimated based on the expansion of Eq. (2.10). Nevertheless, we expect that the 
corresponding curves in Fig. 2 represent well the divergence of the perturbative expansion. 
As usual in asymptotic expansions there is no use in summing up the series beyond the point 
where it starts diverging, which is roughly the order that reproduces the principal-value 
result. Since this never occurs beyond NNLL an exact calculation of subleading logarithms 
(yet unavailable) is less important for phenomenology in this case than careful treatment 
of power corrections. What is expected to make a significant impact on phenomenology 
is the use of power-like separation as provided by the principal-value prescription instead 
of the commonly used NLL truncation of the Sudakov exponent. As Fig. 2 shows, NLL 
truncation cannot be considered a good approximation to the principal-value prescription 




- 13 - 



over the entire N range nor does it differ from it by power terms. 



2.2 Power corrections 
2.2.1 The shape function 

As announced, we focus here on the end-point region, namely the large-TV limit. The 
leading non-perturbative corrections in this limit are associated with the soft scale, m/N. 
Through the renormalon calculation we have provided evidence for power corrections on 
the soft scale, but we have not proven that these are indeed the leading corrections at 
large N. In fact, they are. For example, there are no corrections that scale like N 2 A/m. 
A completely general argument will be provided below. 

As reflected in the renormalon ambiguity of ^(m 2 ,^/ 2 ) in Eq. (2.14), the leading 
power correction is 0(NA/m), which is potentially very large. It is therefore of primary 
interest to understand the origin of this correction. This is the main goal of this section. 
Subleading corrections on the soft scale are important as well and need to be resummed 
into a shape function [11, 14], as we discuss below. On the other hand, we shall not be 
interested here in further subleading power corrections 0(NA 2 /m 2 ) or 0(A/m) which are 
associated with the jet function and the hard function, respectively. 

To include power corrections on the soft scale we replace ^(m 2 ; /x 2 ) in our expression 
for the moments, Eq. (2.13), by the corresponding matrix-element definition, F(N;/i 2 ). 
Let B(pb) be a meson with momentum ps- We define F(z; n 2 ) as the Fourier transform of 
the forward hadronic matrix element of two heavy-quarks fields 6 on the lightcone (y 2 = 0) : 

F{z^ 2 ) = ±- ^yle iz ^y(B(p B )\mmy)\B( P B)) tl2 , (2.23) 

^ J-oo PBV 

and then take moments: 

F(N-fi 2 )= f dzF{z- l i 2 )z N - 1 . (2.24) 
Jo 

Note that ^(m 2 ; y?) of Eq. (2.14) is nothing else but the perturbative analogue of F(z; n 2 ) 
which is obtained by replacing the hadron by an on-shell heavy quark (p 2 = m 2 ) q{p): 

F PT (z;v 2 ) = ±- [°° ^e iz ™ {q(p)\*(O)0(y)\q(p)) 2 . (2.25) 

In moment space n 2 evolution is multiplicative. Since the evolution factors of F(N; fi 2 ) 
and F PT (N; fi 2 ) are the same, the ratio 

FMN) ^ ^f l (2.26) 



6 Note that our definition is written in full QCD, not in the infinite mass limit of the HQET. Another 
difference with the literature is that here F is a function of a dimensionless variable, the momentum 
fraction z, rather than of the lightcone momentum component itself. The relation with S(ui) in [27] is 
F(z, (i 2 ) ~ M S(A — (1 — z)M), so S(uj) has support between — m and A, or in the m — > oo limit, between 
—oo and A. 



- 14 - 



does not depend on fx 2 . This function incorporates power corrections on the soft scale m/N 
which distinguish the heavy meson state from an on-shell heavy quark. We conclude that 
the non-perturbative formula for the moments takes the form 

M N = C N (a s (m 2 )) S N (m 2 ; ^ 2 ) F NP (N) J N (m 2 ; fi 2 ) = M P N T F NP (N), (2.27) 

The properties of F NF (N) will be discussed in the following section. 

2.2.2 HQET and the OPE 

The HQET (see e.g. [51,52]) is a systematic way to identify the leading contributions to 
QCD matrix elements in the large mass limit. Here we would like to use this framework 
to parametrize the shape function F NP (z) and, in particular, to understand its dependence 
on the mass definition. We recall that in the perturbative treatment we assumed that the 
decaying b quark was on-shell. Our answer for the moments of the photon-energy spectrum, 
Eq. (2.10), contains an infrared renormalon at u = 1/2, namely an 0(N A/m) ambiguity, 
which exponentiates together with the perturbative logs. In order to trace the cancellation 
of this ambiguity in the next section we first need to understand the dependence of F NP (z) 
on the definition of the mass. 

In the large mass limit the momentum of the heavy quark within the hadron is naturally 
written as p = mv + k where v is the hadron four velocity, v = ps/M, and k is the residual 
momentum which is small compared to heavy-quark mass m. The effective Lagrangian 
describing the dynamics in the large-m limit is 

C cB = h v (x)(iv ■ D - 5m)h v {x) + ■■■, (2.28) 

where h v (x) is the velocity-dependent rescaled quark field, 

h v (x) = e im ^ x ^ (2.29) 

5m = m — mn is the residual mass term which is constant in the large-m limit, m is the 
pole mass and the dots stand for 0(A/m) terms. 

The residual mass term [53] appears in the Lagrangian because there is freedom in the 
choice of the mass wiq in Eq. (2.29). The natural candidate for mg is the pole mass (m). 
However, if one is concerned with power terms then specifying tuq as the pole mass does not 
justify eliminating 5m in Eq. (2.28) because the pole mass itself (i.e. its relation with any 
short-distance mass) has an infrared renormalon at u = 1/2 [55] which implies that it has 
an inherent linear ambiguity of order A. This ambiguity is understood on physical grounds: 
owing to confinement the full quark propagator does not have a pole. Using the pole mass 
in Eq. (2.29) would therefore render 5m zero to any order in the coupling while non-zero 
and ambiguous as far as power suppressed terms 0(A/m) ~ exp {— ir/(2a s (m 2 )f3o)} are 
concerned. It was shown in [55, 57] that upon including an ambiguous 5m term in the 
HQET Lagrangian one can trace the dependence of matrix elements on the mass definition 
and that eventually such ambiguities cancel out in physical observables. It is important to 
stress that this cancellation does not occur within the HQET but in full QCD, and only 



- 15 - 



provided that the u = 1/2 infrared renormalon in the coefficient functions relating HQET 
matrix elements to physical observables are taken into account. 

Let us now address the non-perturbative contribution to the b-quark distribution in 
the B meson, F NP (z), by considering the matrix-element definition within the HQET. In 
this framework /j, 2 is the scale at which the effective theory is matched to the full theory, 
A 2 <C fJ? <C m 2 . Since we are not concerned at this point with perturbative corrections we 
can simply identify F NP (z) with the matrix-element definition in Eq. (2.23) taken at Born 
level. Thus, in the HQET we obtain 



r 

•(*) = / 
J — i 



d(vy) m{vy){z-^- 

47T 



B(Mv) h v (0) Pe~* & dsy-A+(sy) B ( My 



(2.30) 



where we used Eq. (2.29) and substituted pb = Mv. We also wrote explicitly the path- 
ordered exponential making the matrix element gauge invariant. Note that the normaliza- 
tion of the states in Eq. (2.30) is 

(B(Mv) |M°)M°)| B(Mv)) = 2M. 

Next we would like to expand the non-local lightcone operator in Eq. (2.30) in terms of 
local operators. The matrix elements of these operators can be expressed by the parameters 
of the HQET. A similar expansion was performed in the past, see e.g. [12, 13,49]. At 
difference with previous literature, however, we do not put 5m to zero because we want 
to distinguish between matrix elements that depend on 5m and these that do not. The 
expansion yields: 

wtt(b(Mv) h v (0)Pe- l ti^y-A + (sy) hv{y) B {Mv)) = 1 + £ % {-iv ■ y)\ (2.31) 



2M\ 
where 



fc=i 



2M 



(v + ) k a k = — (B(Mv) h v (0)(iD + ) k h v (0) B(Mv) 



(2.32) 



The matrix elements a k depend on 5m, which is a parameter of the effective Lagrangian 
of Eq. (2.28). Since 5m represents the ambiguity that should cancel against the u = 1/2 
renormalon in the perturbative coefficient function we would like to isolate this dependence. 
Using the equation of motion 

i(v ■ D)h v (x) = 5mh v (x) 



we can immediately fix the first parameter in Eq. (2.31), a\ = 5m. Using further the 
matrix element corresponding to the kinetic energy of the b quark inside the meson (see 
e.g. [11, 12]) we can fix also the second coefficient 02- Let us define 



1 

2M 



(B(Mv) \h v (0)(g, 



v fl v u )iD> l iD' / h v {0)\B(Mv) 



(2.33) 



- 16 - 



As discussed in [11] Ai < 0. It is straightforward to check by a change of variables in the 
functional integral, 



dm — ► 5m, 

h(y) — ► h(y) = e^- 5 ™-- 5 ™) «w h(y), (2.34) 

that, like the Lagrangian, Ai is independent of 5m. Having established this we express a 2 
in terms of Ai exposing explicitly the dependence on 5m: a 2 = (5m) 2 — Ai/3. Similarly, to 
deal with 03 we use the definition 

^L(B(Mv) \h v (0)v u D^ h v (0)\ B{Mv)) = -3/ 3 . (2.35) 

Also fa is independent of 5m. We can now express the third coefficient as 03 = (5m) 3 — 
\\5m + fa. It is convenient to define fa = — Ai/3 > and then the first three coefficients 
are: 

ai = 5m, 

a 2 = (5m) 2 + fa, 

a 3 = (5m) 3 + 3f 2 5m + fa. (2.36) 

This procedure can be continued to higher orders. At each order n the coefficient a n 
contains at least one new parameter which is unrelated to the definition of the mass and 
thus enters with (5m)°; in addition a n contains a polynomial of order n in 5m. We observe, 
however, that the 5m-dependent terms have a very specific structure (to any order): they 
exponentiate. The r.h.s. of Eq. (2.31) can be resummed, getting 

^m(b(Mv) \h v (o)Pe- l ti d °y- A +(sy) hv ( y )\ b(Mv)) = (2.37) 



l + (-iv.y) 2 ^ + (-ivyf^ + - 
2 o 



F(-ivyk), 



where the sum in the square brackets, and therefore the function T(—iv ■ yA), are entirely 
free of the it = 1/2 renormalon ambiguity; A appearing in T(—iv ■ yA) is the QCD scale: 
it must not be identified with the ambiguous A = M — m. The exponential factor in 
Eq. (2.37) can be understood from general considerations: it is a reminiscent of the scaling 
of the fields in Eq. (2.29). The ambiguity in the mass used to define the HQET reappears 
as an exponential factor in the parametrization of the matrix element of Eq. (2.31). 
Using Eq. (2.37), Eq. (2.30) becomes 

™ e ^{ z —) jF(-iu,A/M) + 0(A/M), (2.38) 
-oo 2vr 

exhibiting the fact [53] that the residual mass term 5m enters matrix elements only in the 
combination mq> + 5m = m. 



-17- 



Next, using Eq. (2.38) together with the definition of the moments, Eq. (2.24), one 
can show that to leading order in 1/N, 

F NP (N) = e -(N~i)K/M jr^ N _ 1)A/M) + (A/M) (2.39) 

= e -™[ 1 + |((^)%|((^)%...] +0(A/M) , 

where we used the definition A = M — m = M — txiq — 5m in the exponential factor. To 
derive this relation one first converts the Mellin integral over z into Laplace, neglecting 
0{1/N) (or, equivalently, 0{A/M)) corrections. The z integral is then straightforward. 
Finally, the u integral can be done by closing a contour in the complex plane picking up 
the residue at u = i(N—l). In the following, as in Eq. (2.39), we shall explicitly use m (and 
A) rather than ttiq. The reader should keep in mind that this parameter is ambiguous. 

Note that Eq. (2.39) is scaling law. For example, it excludes corrections scaling like 
0(N 2 A/M). Put differently, it implies that there is one natural way to take the large N 
and large M limits, namely with the ratio NA/M fixed. 

Note also that in Eq. (2.39) we have chosen to write everywhere N — I rather than 
iV in order to impose the requirement that F NP (N = 1) = 1 (which is fixed by the overall 
normalization of the moments, Mjy = i = 1) without involving additional 0(1/N) terms. 
This way our approximation for F NP (N) captures correctly not only the large- N limit but 
also the N = 1 limit. 

We stress again the distinction between the first factor in Eq. (2.39), e -( N ~ l ) A / M 
which contains a mass-related renormalon ambiguity at u = 1/2 and the second factor, 
F({N — 1)A/M), which is free of this ambiguity. F{{N — \)A/M) does not depend on the 
quark mass but only on the physical meson mass through the ratio (N — 1)A/M. Besides 
this fact, the most important property of this function is that its linear term in the small 
(N — 1)A/M expansion vanishes, as shown in the second line of Eq. (2.39). 

Having established that ^((N — 1)A/M) itself is free of any it = 1/2 renormalon 
ambiguity, it is important to recall that this function, or alternatively the values of matrix 
elements f n , do contain (in general) other (u ^ 1/2) renormalon ambiguities of ultraviolet 
origin. Similarly to higher-twist corrections to deep inelastic structure functions these 
matrix elements need to be defined by specifying a regularization prescription for the 
renormalons which corresponds to the one used for infrared renormalons in the perturbative 
coefficient function. 

At this point it is useful to compare Eq. (2.39) with the renormalon-based ansatz of 
Eq. (2.12). The leading term, 0((N — 1)A/M) exponentiates in both. Note, however, 
that the reasoning that lead us to deduce that exponentiation occurs was completely dif- 
ferent: in Eq. (2.12) it was based on the exponentiation of perturbative soft radiation 
while in Eq. (2.12) it was based on the dependence of the heavy-quark field on the mass. 
Higher-order terms in the HQET analysis do not exponentiate but this cannot be consid- 
ered as contradiction between the two, as we do not know how to sum the series of power 
terms. A more significant difference is the presence of a second power 0(((N — 1)A/M) 2 ) 
in Eq. (2.39), associated with the kinetic energy of the heavy quark inside the meson in 
contrast with its absence in Eq. (2.12). We recall that the latter is a consequence of the 



- 18 - 



vanishing of the corresponding renormalon residue in the perturbative result, Eq. (2.10), 
in the large-/3o limit 7 . In spite of the vanishing of this renormalon, it is sensible to allow 
an 0(((N — 1)A/M) 2 ) term in a phenomenological model for power corrections. To un- 
derstand this term from the renormalon perspective note that: (1) Generally, absence of 
a renormalon does not imply the vanishing of the corresponding non-perturbative param- 
eter, only the vanishing of its ambiguity. Thus, Eq. (2.12) should only be considered as a 
minimal parametrization, not a constraining one. (2) It has been shown in [63] that in the 
case of the kinetic energy of the b quark a renormalon singularity does appear when going 
beyond the single-dressed-gluon approximation. 

2.2.3 Cancellation of the u = 1/2 renormalon 

It is well known [56, 57] that the total semi-leptonic decay width, 



T(B — ► X u lu) = 



G F \V ub \ 2 m 5 

1927T 3 



1 2a s {m?) ( 2 25^ 
3tt \ 4 



(2.40) 



is free of any u = 1/2 renormalon ambiguity. If the pole mass is used in the calculation 
an intricate cancellation occurs between the u = 1/2 ambiguity contained in the overall 
factor m 5 and that associated with the sum of the perturbative series in the square brackets. 
If a short-distance mass is used instead, these two factors are separately free of such 
ambiguities. Here we show that similar cancellation takes place in differential decay spectra. 

To demonstrate the cancellation of ambiguities we shall resum the perturbative series in 
the single-dressed-gluon (large— /?o) approximation. One difference with respect to the total 
width is that when considering the spectrum we need to take into account exponentiation: 
Sudakov exponentiation on the perturbative side and the exponentiation of the 5m terms 
on the non-perturbative side. 

Let us first consider the ambiguity in the non-perturbative function in Eq. (2.39) in 
this approximation. The result is: 

F NP (iV) ~ e ~(N-i)(M- m )/M jr^ N _ 1)A/M) QAl) 
= e (N-l)Am/M x e -(N-l)(M-m PV )/M jr^ N _ j^/M) 



with 

Am _ m — rripv Cf 



m m 2(5q 



e cu 



l 



/ A 2\« cn poo /A 2 \" 

^<»>y j^- pY l 5 

(2.42) 

where, as before, we define A in MS so c = 5/3. Here m PV stands for the pole mass in 
which the u = 1/2 renormalon is regularized by the principal-value prescription. Eq. (2.42) 
is correct to leading order in l//?o; we also neglected higher power corrections C(A 3 /m 3 ). 
The explicit expression for ^ L in the large-/3o limit was obtained based on the known 



7 The vanishing of the renormalon associated with the kinetic energy in the single-dressed-gluon approx- 
imation has been noted and analyzed in detail in the past, see e.g. [62]. 



- 19 - 



relation [55-57] in this limit between the pole mass and short-distance mass definitions. 
In particular the relation with the MS mass is 



,2 



^^=% r d uT(u) (l 

m 2/3 Jo V ' V m 



' 3(l-«)r(u)r(l-2u) J_ ~ 
6 T(3-n) + 2« W 



(2.43) 



where G{u) depends on the MS counter terms for the mass 8 and it is free of renormalons. 
Note that since the difference between masses is 0{\/(3q) it does not matter (to leading 
order in l//?o) which mass is used to normalize the mass difference in the equations above. 

Let us turn now to the perturbative side. We recall that owing to the integration over 
x near 1, the perturbative moments M^ T of Eq. (2.10) have a renormalon ambiguity at 
u = 1/2 which is associated with the soft scale m/N . Using in Eq. (2.10) the principal-value 
prescription to define M^ T | pv we obtain: 



poo / a 2 \ « cu 

jf duT{u)[—^ y— -(iV 2 « -1)(U -2„ + 0ni) 

poo / A 2 \ « cu 

PVjf **r(«)(^J (iV 2u - 1) (li - 2n + m ) 



(2.44) 

where the subscripts I, II and III indicate the diagram in Fig. 1 from which each con- 
tribution originates in the Feynman gauge 9 , cf. Eq. (2.3). Note that in Eq. (2.44) we 
have isolated the u = 1/2 pole ignoring subleading power corrections which are unrelated 
to this renormalon. We stress that although the large-iV limit has been taken to arrive 
at Eq. (2.10), our result for the u = 1/2 residue (in the large-/3o limit) as expressed by 
Eq. (2.44) is exact: as one can verify by taking moments of the exact expression in x space, 
Eq. (2.3), there are no subleading 1/N corrections which have renormalon ambiguities at 
u = 1/2. The reason is that this renormalon is directly related to the integration over x in 
the singular x = 1 limit. 

Finally, substituting in Eq. (2.27) the perturbative and non-perturbative factors of 
Eq. (2.44) and Eq. (2.41), respectively, we get 

M N = M^ T F NP (N) = M^ T | PV e -{N-i){M-m VY )/M jr^ N _ y A / M ^ ( 2 .45) 

where the ambiguous exponential factors cancel out in the product. The result is entirely 
free of the u = 1/2 renormalon ambiguity. Moreover, it is independent of the regulariza- 
tion prescription for the u = 1/2 renormalon pole; what is important is that the same 
prescription (here principal value of the Borel sum) is used on both the perturbative Su- 
dakov exponent in M^ T | pv and on the pole mass in e -( Ar - 1 )( M - m Pv)/M_ us stress that 

8 In MS G(u) is given by J^^Lo 9nU n /n\ with g n defined as the expansion coefficients of 

1 (3 + 2u)r(4 + 2u) 



G{u) 



3T(1 -u)r(2 + u) 2 r(3 + u) 



9 A simiiar anaiysis for the contributions of different diagrams to the renormalon residue in the total 
decay rate was done in [56]. There an additional diagram, the self energy of the heavy line, contributes. 



- 20 - 



Eq. (2.45) resums only power corrections depending on the soft scale, M/N: subleading 
power corrections such as 0(A/M) or 0(A 2 N/M 2 ) are neglected here. 

The implications of Eq. (2.45) become more intuitive upon returning to x space. Using 
the inverse Mellin transform 10 we have 



1 dT(x) 1 



dNx~ N M N 



r total dx 2-rri J c 

~ _L f dNe^- 1 ^-^^) M^ T | PV F((N - 1)A/M), (2.46) 
Ziri J c 

where in the second line we neglected 0(1/N) terms. If we neglect the effect of J~((N — 
1)A/M) in Eq. (2.46) altogether, the only effect of confinement is to shift the perturbative 
spectrum in x by the energy fraction of the light degrees of freedom in the meson, (M — 
m)/M, away from the endpoint, towards smaller values of x: 

1 dT(x) 1 dT£(x + 4^)_ 



Etotai dx Ttotai dx 

Note that the shifted spectrum does not depend anymore on the quark mass definition or 
on the fact that the principal-value prescription was used (for both the Sudakov exponent 
and the pole mass). The finding that the leading effect of confinement is a shift of the 
perturbative spectrum is not surprising nor unique to B physics. It is a general feature of 
differential cross sections near kinematic thresholds. For example, a shift occurs in event- 
shape distributions which peak near the two jet limit [41,64,65]. What is special though 
is that in the .B-decay case one can fix the magnitude of the shift in terms of a familiar 
non-perturbative parameter. 

It should be stressed that this shift has nothing to do with the fact that the physical 
endpoint is at E 1 = M/2 whereas the perturbative one is at E 1 = m/2; note that Eq. (2.47) 
concerns the spectrum in the dimensionless scaling variable x. In fact, when addressing the 
close vicinity of endpoint the function J~((N — 1)A/M) cannot be neglected in Eq. (2.46). 
Physically, dT(x)/dx has support for < x < 1. The perturbative spectrum which is 
calculated using the principal-value prescription in moment space does not respect the 
physical support properties and these should be recovered in Eq. (2.46) when the shift 
generated by the exponential as well as the additional smearing generated by the subleading 
power corrections in J-((N — 1)A/M) are taken into account. If (N — 1)A/M is not too 
large the leading power correction in J-((N — 1)A/M) is that of the kinetic energy of the 
b quark inside the meson, j^. However, near the endpoint higher power terms become as 
important. 

The reader should also keep in mind that the spectrum computed by Eq. (2.46) is 
a priori just a rough description of the physical one at x values away from the endpoint 
region: there are additional 0(1/N), or 0(A/M), effects which were neglected altogether. 
Formally, our analysis (perturbative and non-perturbative) applies only at large N. Hav- 
ing fixed, in addition to the large-iV limit, the N = 1 moment one can hope that the 
numerically most important corrections in the first few moments are accounted for, but 



3 The contour C goes from k — too to k + ioo to the right of the singularities of the integrand. 



- 21 - 



this is not guaranteed and it will be eventually decided by the data. Experience in other 
applications [41,48] is very encouraging in this respect. 



3. Semi-leptonic decay 

In this section we consider the semi-leptonic decay B — ► X u l~vi and perform a DGE 
calculation in analogy with the radiative decay presented above. Let us start by describing 
the kinematics. We call the 6-quark momentum p, and the momentum of the leptons k Pl 
and ki. Let us also denote the total momentum of the lepton system by q = k Pl + h. 
We will express the distribution in terms of x = 2pki/m 2 , y = 2pq/m? and the leptonic 
invariant mass fraction z = q 2 /m 2 . In the B rest frame y has the meaning of the total 
leptonic energy (E) fraction, y = 2E/m, while x is the electron (or muon) energy fraction. 
The hadronic system (a it-quark jet) has momentum I and invariant mass 

I 2 = q 2 + m 2 (l- y ) = m 2 {l-y + z). (3.1) 

The semi-leptonic decay rate is given by 

T = G2f ^ f dUPS(p — k Pl + h + l) Im {L^T^} . (3.2) 

Writing the phase-space integral in terms of x, y and z we have: 

r = ^^ 4 2m3 £dz J' dx j^'dy Im j^Born + ^ [A x + 2A U + A m ] | , (3.3) 

where Abotu stands for the Born diagram contracted with the leptonic tensor, and Ayyn 
correspond to the three one-loop diagrams in the Feynman gauge, contracted with the 
leptonic tensor. The Born level result is: ^Born = —4 m 4 (x — z) (y — x)/l 2 . Taking the 
imaginary part we get 

Im {A Bo rn} = 4m 2 (x - z)(y-x)x tt5(1 -y + z). (3.4) 

Next, we compute the one-loop diagrams with a dressed gluon. The calculation is more 
complicated than that of the radiative decay owing to the presence of additional kinematic 
variables. In Appendix B.l we summarize the full result as a double Feynman parameter 
integral. The interest here, however, is in the specific kinematic limit where Sudakov logs 
appear: based on the Born-level calculation this limit is y — ► 1 + z. 

We observe that the phase-space structure of Eq. (3.3) implies that the region y ~ 1 + z 
becomes relevant for x — ► 1: the lower limit in the integration over y approaches 1 + z, 
which is also the upper limit. Thus, if one considers the spectrum near the endpoint x — ► 1 
the Sudakov region is indirectly selected. Nevertheless, one can approach the Sudakov limit 
differently, e.g. by considering directly the region where the hadronic system has small 
invariant mass. Below we first present a triple differential spectrum to leading power in 
(1 + z — y) allowing one to approach the Sudakov limit in different ways. Then we focus 
on the specific example of the single differential rate in x to leading power in (1 — x). 



-22- 



In Appendix B.2 we compute all the singular terms of the semi-leptonic decay in the 
limit y — ► 1 + z in the single-dressed-gluon approximation. Combining the jet and soft 
functions, Eq. (B.17) and Eq. (B.22), respectively, and using Eq. (3.3) we arrive at the 
following triple differential decay rate to leading power in (1 + z — y): 



1 dT(y,x,z) . . f , Cp f . . / A 

-\2{x-z){l + z-x) \5(l + z-y) + -± / duT(u) — 

I 2/J Jo \ m 

2 1 - u /l + z - y\ -i-2u /2 1 1 \sin7ru/ u" 

-1 — H " " + i — + 9 — U + ^-y 

Ml - Z \ 1 — Z / \U 1 — U 2 — U J TTU \ J 



r tot ai dydxdz 



x 



, (3.5) 



where we normalized the spectrum dividing by the total decay width: 



r total = r x(i + o(« s )), r = G ^ 2 3 m5 , (3.6) 

where T is the Born-level width. Eq. (3.5) is the analogue of Eq. (2.9). 

We note that the general u-dependent structure of the soft and the jet functions in 
Eq. (B.22) and Eq. (B.17) is the same as in the radiative decay (cf. Eq. (2.9)), the difference 
being restricted to the z dependence of the two scales involved. Here the soft function 
depends on mil + z — j/)/(l — z) and the jet function on m 2 (l + z — y). Clearly, in the 
limit z — ► Eq. (3.5) reduces to Eq. (2.9), where y in the former takes the role of x in 
the latter. 

We recall that these functions appear not only in heavy-flavor decay spectra, but also in 
other differential cross sections near a kinematic threshold. The perturbative soft function 
is associated with radiation off a heavy quark close to its mass shell, and it therefore 
describes also the heavy-quark fragmentation function [48]. The jet function [28-35] occurs 
even more frequently: it is not specific to heavy-quark physics. It describes radiation off 
an unresolved jet with a constrained invariant mass I 2 . In the framework of DGE the same 
expression for the jet function has already been obtained in the context of deep inelastic 
structure functions at large Bjorken x [45-47], single-particle inclusive cross sections in 
e + e~ annihilation for light [45] and heavy quarks [48] and event-shape distributions [41,44]. 

Infrared and collinear safety requires cancellation of u = poles between the soft and 
the jet functions. Indeed, the result is finite: the expansion of the Borel function in the 
square brackets of Eq. (3.5) is 

_J ^2\n(l + z-y)-Aln(l- z) + l) +0{u). (3.7) 



l+z-y\ v ' 2 

This (times Cf/(2tt)) is the logarithmically-enhanced part of the coefficient of a s in the 
perturbative expansion. One immediately identifies the double- and the single-logarithmic 
terms of (1 + z — y). At difference with the radiative-decay case, there are also single logs 
of (1 — z) originating from the soft function, which mix with those of (1 + z — y). Note that 
z — ► 1 corresponds to another singular limit (not considered here) where the invariant 
mass of the lepton pair approaches the total b-quark mass. 

To resum soft-gluon radiation, Eq. (3.5) needs to be exponentiated in moment space 
in analogy with Eq. (2.10). Natural moment-space definitions are with respect to y — z, 



- 23 - 



or the electron energy fraction x. In the following we concentrate on the latter possibility, 
which is useful for describing the single differential rate with respect to x. To this end we 
need to integrate the triple differential rate, Eq. (3.5), over the phase space: for any fixed x 
(0 < x < 1) the available phase space (cf. Eq. (3.3)) is 



dz 



dy 



r-l+x t-x{y-x) i-\ r-x{y-x) 

= dy dz + dy dz 

Jl Jy-l Jx JO 

~ J 1+X dy(2 - y) J^_^ di ~ J 2 dy(2 - y) j' d£, (3.8) 

1 2-y 1 X 

where in the first step we changed the order of integration keeping the exact phase space; 
in the second we neglected the second term which is 0(1 — x) with respect to the first; in 
the third we changed variables to £ = (1 — z)/{2 — y); and in the fourth approximated the 
integration limits neglecting 0(1 — x) terms. 

Integrating the single-dressed-gluon result, Eq. (3.5), over this approximate phase 
space we retain exactly the leading power in (1 — x). In order to preform exponentiation 
we now take moments with respect to x, 



M%= f'dxx^ 1 fdy{2-y) f ' d£ -± 

J Jl Jx J-to 

Using Eq. (3.5), the DGE formula takes the form: 

M^ = 0^(a s (m 2 ))exp{^f Hdunu) (~ 2 

I 2po Jo \m 



dT(y,x,z) 



dydxdz 



z=l-£(2-y) 



(3.9) 



u) T{-2u) (N 2u - 1) 



2 

u + T 



+ 



u 



u)(3 



Sin7TU 



iru 



F(-u) (N u - 1) 



(3.10) 



where we absorbed an overall factor (~ 2/N at large N) into the coefficient Cjy and 
exponentiated the logarithmic terms. There are two differences with respect to the radiative 
decay case, Eq. (2.10). The most important one that here C|} is 0(1/N) rather than 0(1). 
The other is the factor 6/ [(2 — n)(3 — u)] in the second term which emerges from a weighted 
integral over the jet function, the integral over y in Eq. (3.9). 

Upon expanding the exponential and the Borel sum to order a s we obtain: 



N 



C$(a s (m 2 )) 1 + 



CfOs 

2vr 



hr A' + ( — 
6 



27s In AT 



+ 0(a 



(3.11) 



Note that the constant (iV-independent) terms are all in C^(a s (m 2 )). This result for the 
leading and next-to-leading logarithmic terms agrees with the known 0{a s ) coefficient, 
see [2,19]. 

It is now straightforward to match our resummed spectrum, Eq. (3.10), to the exact 
0(a s ) result to account for subleading powers of 1/N. The matching coefficient function 
is given by: 



C#(a a (m 2 )) 



2 (N + 5) 



(TV + 2) (N + 3) 



1 + 



CfOs 

2tt 



7T 



(q,(N) + 7E y + ^ 1 (N)- — 



- 24 - 



+ 



5 31 

V "N + 1 + IF 
15 211 

Y + 150 (N + 5) 



6 3i \ _n ii 

5(iV + 5) + 5AfJ ( ( j + 7£) + 3(iV + 2) 150 JV 



-ln 2 iV + 



31 

if 




(3.12) 



Eq. (3.10) together with Eq. (3.12) summarizes our perturbative result for the electron 
spectrum in the semi-leptonic decay. As usual, the perturbative sum in Eq. (3.10) needs a 
prescription for renormalon ambiguities. Once regularized, this spectrum can be combined 
with non-perturbative corrections and then converted to x space according to Eq. (2.46). 
It is natural to use the same regularization prescription as in the radiative decay (the 
principal value). Only then can we identify the shape function between the two physical 
processes. 



4. Conclusions 

We presented here a new approach to describe inclusive B-decay spectra in QCD focusing 
on the endpoint region, x — ► 1. We observe that precise description of the spectra near 
the endpoints requires power-like separation between perturbative and non-perturbative 
contributions on the soft scale, M/N. Our approach to the problem is based on Dressed 
Gluon Exponentiation (DGE) and it differs from conventional Sudakov resummation by 
running-coupling effects, renormalons, which probe the inherent power-like ambiguity of 
the Sudakov exponent. The non-perturbative contribution to the b-quark distribution in 
the meson is, by itself, ambiguous, so it can only be defined in correspondence with the 
regularization of the renormalons in the perturbative result. For the leading renormalon, 
0(NA/M), we have explicitly shown how a regularization-prescription (or mass-scheme) 
independent, well-defined answer emerges owing to cancellation of ambiguities between the 
Sudakov exponent and the definition of the pole mass. At the end the effect of the leading 
power correction, e .—( N — 1 ) A -/ M - n (2.39), is to shift the perturbative spectrum in x by 
the relative mass difference between the meson and the quark. This result is important for 
phenomenology, as it opens up the possibility to fix the leading non-perturbative correction 
without using the data. 

The DGE perturbative prediction for moments of the photon energy spectrum in the 
B — ► A s 7 decay is summarised by Eq. (2.10) with the matching coefficient of Eq. (2.22). 
After taking the principal-value Borel integral this result can be readily converted to x 
space by an inverse Mellin transform. It is important to note that having performed a 
principal-value sum, the result is free of any Landau singularity (see [48]). This stands in 
sharp contrast with the standard fixed-logarithmic-accuracy approximation, e.g. [16, 20, 
21], which always presents such a singularity at N ~ 0(M/A). In practice, it is probably 
most convenient to include the parametrization of non-perturbative corrections, Eq. (2.39), 
directly in moment space and then convert to x space according to Eq. (2.46) in order to 
compare with data. 



- 25 - 



Let us recall at this point that having concentrated on the specific problems of the 
endpoint region, we neglected other effects which are important for the phenomenology of 
radiative decays. One example is running-coupling effects, which have been shown [18] 
to be important away from the endpoint at order a 2 s . Such corrections can be extracted 
from Eq. (2.2) to any order. Other 0(a 2 s ) corrections, which are harder to compute, 
may eventually be non-negligible. Obviously, one should also consider the contribution 
of operators other than the magnetic one (Eq. (2.1)) on both the perturbative and non- 
perturbative levels. These involve qualitatively different effects. For example, the operator 
(cLa7' 1 &La)(sL/37 / iCL i a) involves a non-perturbative contribution associated with the pro- 
duction of an intermediate J/* state. 

The analogous DGE perturbative prediction for the moments of the charged-lepton 
energy spectrum in the B — ► X u l~vi decay is summarised by Eq. (3.10) and the matching 
coefficient of Eq. (3.12). As previously discussed, non-perturbative corrections correspond- 
ing to the b-quark distribution in the B meson are the same as in the B — ► X s ~f decay. 
We note that other differential distributions in the B — ► X u l~vi decay, such as the dis- 
tribution in the invariant mass of the hadronic system near the endpoint, can be readily 
computed from Eq. (3.5) by phase-space integration and exponentiation in the appropriate 
moment space. 

On the theoretical side it is interesting to observe the universal structure of the per- 
turbative soft and jet functions. These two functions were shown to be the same for the 
semi-leptonic decay and the radiative B — ► X s ~f decay involving the magnetic operator; 
the difference between the two cases is restricted to the relations between the arguments 
of the functions and the scaling variables (cf. Eq. (3.5) and Eq. (2.9)). Moreover, this 
perturbative universality extends beyond the application to B decay. The soft function of 
Eq. (2.14) represents radiation off a heavy quark which is close to its mass shell and thus 
it also describes the perturbative contribution to heavy-quark fragmentation [48]. The jet 
function describes radiation off an unresolved jet with a constrained invariant mass and 
it is particularly important in the analysis of deep inelastic structure function at large 
Bjorken x, where it is the only source of Sudakov logs [45-47]. It also appears in single- 
particle inclusive cross sections in e + e~ annihilation for light [45] and heavy quarks [48] as 
well as in event-shape distributions [41,44]. 

Acknowledgments 

I would like to thank Gregory Korchemsky for suggesting this project to me, for sharing 
with me his insight on the problem and for many hours of discussion. I also want to thank 
Volodya Braun and Bryan Webber for useful discussions. This work is supported by a 
Marie Curie individual fellowship, contract number HPMF-CT-2002-02112. 



- 26 - 



A. Extracting singular terms in B — ► X s j 

Here we summarize the formulae used to compute the singular terms in the x — ► 1 limit 
from the full single-dressed-gluon result of Eq. (2.2). In order to deal with the Feynman- 
parameter integrals we use asymptotic expansions of the form: 
i 



f da: ^_ ( i_ a) - = ^_(i + l^ + ((l-x) 2 )) + ^^(l-,-, , 
J 1 — xa u(l — u) \ 1 + u ) sin iru 



/ da 
Jo 



a 



(1 - xaf 



;i-a)-« 



1 



;i + o((i-x))) 



u(l -u)(l +u) 
+ (1 - x)-"-^"- 3 (u - 2(1 - x)) . 

Sill 7TU 



(A.l) 



The result is: 
1 dT 



total 



dx 



(1 + 0(a s ))5(l - x) + 



C 



1 '°° ' ^V e ^(l-,)- 



2ttu 
sin iru 
1 



(1-x) 



-1-u 



Wo Jo 
2 

+ 



(in 



1 — x \ u(l — u) 



1 + (1 " *r U - 



Sin 7TU 



1-x (2-u)(l-u) 



(A.2) 



The three terms correspond to the diagrams I, II and III (in the Feynman gauge), re- 
spectively. Organizing the result based on the parametric dependence on (1 — x) we get 
Eq. (2.9). 

B. Renormalon calculation of the semi-leptonic decay spectrum 
B.l A renormalon calculation 

Here we perform the single-dressed-gluon renormalon calculation of the semi-leptonic de- 
cay spectrum with Borel-modified gluon propagator. The three one-loop diagrams of 
figure 1, contracted with the leptonic tensor, are denoted A\, A\\ and Am. Computing the 
traces and performing the integral over the gluon momentum using Feynman parameters 
we arrive at: 



A, = - 



An = - 



m 6 f 1 daa u (l-a)- u C d\{\ - A) (-fi 2 ) " 2 V k l n (a, z, y, x, u)X n , 
Jo Jo n=0 

[ daa u {l-a)- u [ dA (-/2 2 )""" 1 x (B.l) 
Jo Jo 

2 2 2 



n=0 



n=0 



Am = - 



2 1 

m — 



u Jo 



daa u {l-a)- u (-fi 2 \ x=i y 



m 



k m (a,z,x) + k LLL (a,z,x) 



ill/ 



P + iO 



where we explicitly displayed the dependence on the Feynman parameter A, and k n and 
k n are polynomials in the other dimensionless variables: the Feynman parameter a, the 



-27- 



external kinematic variables y, z and x and the Borel parameter u. For the first diagram 
the coefficients are given by 

k\ = 16 (u + 1) (z -x){y-x)- 16 (u + 1) (-2 x + z) {y - x) (1 - a) 
+ 8 (2 z (x + 1) - (z + x) (y - x) u - 2 y z) (1 - a) 2 

- 8 (-2 z - 2 x 2 + 2 j/ x + x (y - x) u) (1 - a) 3 

fcj = 8(i(-l + ?/-z)(j/ + z-x) + ( 3 /+2«)z 2 - (2yu + y 2 + 2-y)z)(l-a) 
+ 8((2 y - z -l)x 2 - {2zu- y + 2y 2 + 2z)x + 2z 2 u 

+ (2yu + 2y - 2 + y 2 )z)(l - a) 2 - 8(-z (x + y)u + yx 2 + 2zx - y 2 x) (1 - a) 3 
£; 2 = 8 z (-(-x 2 + 2 z + z x) u + (3 z - 2 y + 3) x + y 2 + (- 1 - 2 z) y) (1 - a) 2 

- 8 z (- (-2 2 - x 2 ) u + y {y - 2 x)) (1 - a) 3 

jfe£ = 8(z 2 h+ z 2 (y - 2x)) (1 - a) 3 (B.2) 

for the second by 

8(l-a) 2 (-x + l + z) (z-x) 



k l Q = 8a(z — x) (z 2 + z — az — zx — 1 + x) + 



u 



k l i = —8 (—1 — z — a x + x + a z + 2 a) z (1 — a) (z — x) 

8(1- a) 2 (1 + z)(-x + l + z) (z - x) 



k u 



\(z-x)(l- a) 2 z (-x + 1 + z) + - 
I a z 2 —8a (—a + y — 2x)z — 8ax 



u 

\2 



■ (z - x) (1 - a) 2 z (-x + l + z) 
u 

_ 8(z-x)(l-a) 2 
u 



kY = 8 (1 — a) z (— z + az + ay — 2ax + x) 

8 (1 — a) (z — x) (— z + az + a — 1 — ax + ay) 



a 



k^ 



. 2 8(z - x) (1 - a) 2 z 
(z-x)(l-a) 2 z — 



a 



(B.3) 



and for the third by 

k m = -8a(z-x)(l-x + z) 
k m = 8a (z-x). 

The scale — p? appears after the gluon momentum integration. It is given by: 

— </)//'" 

z + 1 — ya 1 



(B.4) 



/2 2 = A 2 (l - a)q 2 -\{q 2 + m 2 (l - ya)) + (1 - a)m' 



= — m 2 (l — a)z 
= — m 2 (l — a)z 



— A + A- 

(1 — ajz z 

(A 2 -A)(A-Ai) 



(B.5) 



For the diagram III it is evaluated at A = 1, so it simplifies a lot: 



lA=l 



-^ 2 a. 



- 28 - 



In Eq. (B.5) we denned A2 as the larger of the two (real) roots of the equation — /i 2 (A) = 0. 
It turns out that in the physical range < Ai < 1 and A2 > 1, so — p? is negative only for A 
between Ai and 1. This is the real-emission contribution to the imaginary part. Additional 
contributions come, as at the Born level, from the I /(I 2 + iO) propagator terms. 

Finally, let us explain how the A integrals can be performed. When taking the imagi- 
nary part the integrals over A range between Ai and 1. They have the general form: 

I n (io) = f 1 dX X n [(A 2 - A)(A - Ai)]" . (B.6) 

The result can be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions. In particular, 

JoM = / 1 dA[(A 2 -A)(A-A 1 )r 

1 fa(l-y + z)Y +1 (1-0)2 



l + (l-a)z J ^A 2 

[uj + 2],4(l-y + z)a(l-a)z/A 2 ) (B.7) 



1> U + 1 



where A 2 = (z + 1 - ya) 2 - 4(1 - a) 2 z. We also note that 

1 1 fa(l-y + z)Y +1 Ai + A 



AH = -^T—. ( ^ "A."' ) + ^ J oH (B.8) 



2 1 + uj \ (1 - a)z J 2 
and that any higher n integral can be obtain using the following recursion relation: 

I n (w) = -/„_ 2 (w + 1) + (Ai + A 2 )/„-iM - AiA 2 /„-2H. (B.9) 
To leading order in (1 — y + z) there is a significant simplification: 

«»>^(wr^ +o(i -' + « k (b ' io » 

for any n. As we shall see below this approximation is useful to extract the jet function 
while it is not valid for the soft function, where higher-order terms in the expansion are 
accompanied by higher singularities in (1 — a). 

B.2 Extracting singular terms 

Our purpose is to perform DGE in the triple differential rate in semi-leptonic decays. 
To this end we need to extract all the terms containing powers of ln(l — y + z), to any 
logarithmic accuracy (but to leading order in the large-/?o limit), neglecting terms that are 
suppressed by a power of (1 — y + z). It should be emphasized that this does not imply we 
neglect powers of (1 — x): the dependence on x remains at this stage exact. 

In contrast with the radiative decay case, our calculation here is guided by what we 
know about answer, namely that it contains two scales from different kinematic origin: the 
jet mass scale I 2 which is proportional to m 2 (l — y + z) and the soft scale m(l — y + z); 
in the Borel representation the running coupling appears as (m 2 /A 2 )", thus the former 



- 29 - 



will generate dependence on (1 — y + z)~ u while the latter dependence on (1 — y + z)~ 2u . 
Therefore, we would like to devise methods to extract from the full result of section B.l 
the singular terms at y — ► 1 + z and compute the two corresponding Sudakov exponents 
separately, in section B.2.1 the jet function and in section B.2.2 the soft one. 

B.2.1 Jet function 

We work in the Feynman gauge. Let us begin with diagram I in figure 1. We recall that in 
the radiative decay this diagram contributes only to the soft function, i.e. it involves the 
scale m{\ — y + z) but not m 2 (l — y + z). We will see that this is so also here. 
An exact calculation of diagram I yields (see Eq. (B.l)): 

Ai = -m 6 / daa u {l-a)- u dX(\ - X) (-/2 2 ) V k\(a, z, y, x, u)X n , (B.ll) 
Jo Jo n=0 

where ft 2 is the scale that appears when combining the propagators by Feynman parametriza- 
tion (Eq. (B.5)): 



-2 2 

fjL = —m 



z(l - a)X 2 + (l + z- ya)X - (I - a) 



(B.12) 



and k\ are polynomials. The imaginary part of A\ comes from the region where p? > 
so Ai < A < 1, where Ai is the smaller of the two (real) solutions of Ji 2 = 0. Since jl 2 is 
quadratic in A the integral looks difficult. Expanding Ji 2 for y — ► 1 + z is not allowed, since 
then Ai = 1 and the integral loses its support. Therefore the A integral must be performed 
exactly. This can be done: the method is summarized at the end of the previous section. 

Having performed the A integral, the leading dependence on I 2 becomes explicit, 
through the factor (1 — y + z)~~ l ~ u . Therefore, the jet function can be readily computed 
by expanding 11 in powers of (1 — y + z) under the integral over a. To leading power in 
(1 — y + z) one can use Eq. (B.10) so the integral 

f 1 dxx n (-a 2 P~ 2 

Jo 

does not depend on n. One immediately realizes that owing to the factor 1 — A in Eq. (B.ll) 
diagram I does not contribute to the jet function at all. 

Next, let us consider diagram II. Upon neglecting terms in the numerator which are 
suppressed by a power of (1 — y + z), the second line in Eq. (B.l) reduces to 12 : 

An ^ n ~ m \ ; f daa u (l-a)- u C dX (-fl 2 )^ 1 V fc°(a, z, x, u)X n . (B.13) 
{L — y + z) J J$ n=Q 



11 Such an expansion is not valid for the calculation of soft terms, which are sensitive to the region a — > 1. 
We shall deal with these terms below. 

12 Note that we ignore here the prescription for the light-quark propagator: when taking the imaginary 
part we will be interested in the gluon emission cut, not in the pole. 



- 30 - 



Let us now compute the jet contribution to diagram II in the method explained above. 
Using Eq. (B.10) we have 

ri _ u _ x 2 . ri _ u _ t 2 

/ d\(-fi 2 ) u y2k^(a,z,x,u)X n ~ / dX(-fi 2 ) u Vfc°(a, z,x,u) 

J n=0 J ° n=0 

~ -8(x -z)(l + z-x) (-m 2 ) -1 "" ^""(l - a)- 1 ^- [(1 - y + z)] (B.14) 



so the integral over a is straightforward and the final result is: 



A u \. t = -8(x-z)(l + z-x) (-m 2 ) 



2\l-u 



1 



U 



2 (1 



u 



-l-u 



(B.15) 



Diagram III is simple as it depends on just one external momentum, I. The leading 
contribution in (1 — y + z) is: 



A 



in 



8(x - z)(l + z-x) 



l-u 



-m 



1 



u 



8(x - z)(l + z-x) (-m 2 ) 



2\i-u 



1-y + z 
1 



-l-u 



daa(l - a) u 



1-y + z 



-l-u 



(B.16) 



u(l - u){2 - u) V 

Clearly, this diagram contributes only to the jet function, not to the soft one. 

Finally, collecting the contributions of the different diagrams and taking the imaginary 
part by replacing ( — by sin7rn we obtain: 



Im{A jct } =Im{2^f 

= -8tt(x-z)(1 + z-x) (m 2 ) 1 "" S[n7rU 



ITU 



2 1 1 

- + -, + - 

u 1 — u 2 — u 



1-y + z 



(B.17) 

l-u 



B.2.2 Soft function 

Consider now the singular contributions from diagram I on the soft scale m(l — y + z). 
These terms were discarded in the procedure described above: the additional dependence 
on (1 — y + z) is associated with the singular limit a = 1. This suggest that the soft terms 
can be computed by expanding Eq. (B.ll) near a = 1: a power of (1 — a) translates into 
a power of (1—y + z). Let us therefore replace the factor a u by 1 and then extend the 
integration over a in the lower limit to — oo. This will allow us to rescale the integration 
variable. We verified that this manipulation does not change the imaginary part of the 
answer. 

Trading the integration over a by a new variable £, 



1 



i{l + z-y)\ 



(B.18) 



X 2 z - yX + 1 ' 
Eq. (B.ll) can be written as: 

Ai| soft ~ 16(x - z)(l + z-x)(l + u) (-m 2 f~ u (1 + z - y)" 1 " 2 " x 

f'l poo 

/ dX(l - X)X~ 1 - 2u (X 2 z -yX + I)"" 1 / d£ r"(l - 0~ 2 ~ u , (B.19) 

Jo 



-31- 



where we have changed the order of integration and approximated the polynomial in the 
numerator by its leading power in the limit y — ► 1 + z and thus also a — ► 1, 

3 

^2 ki(a,z,y,x,u)X n — > -16(x - z)(l + z - x) (1 + u). 

n=0 

This way we managed to factorize the difficult double integral into a product of two simple 
integrals. Computing the diagram in the soft (Eikonal) approximation one immediately 
obtains Eq. (B.19). 

Coming to evaluate Eq. (B.19) we note that only the region < £ < 1 contributes to 
the imaginary part, and the £ integral becomes 

jf 1 der tt (i - o~ 2_tt = -2 l+2 ^«r(-i - u)/v Q - «) , 



while the A integral is 
l 

d\{l-\)\- l - 2u {\ 2 z 
o 



-yA + lf- 1 = -2- l - 2u (l-z) 2u T{u)T Q - v)j /^+0(l-y+ 



z ■ 



Thus, the final answer for the soft contribution to Aj is: 

\2u I _2\!- u n 



AjU ~ 16(x - z)(l + z-x)(l- z) 2u (-m 2 ) 1 



sm7ru 



1-y + z 



-l-2u 



. (B.20) 



Consider now the soft contribution of diagram II, Eq. (B.13). To leading power in 
(1 — y + z), and thus also in (1 — a), the numerator reduces to 

2 

k l n(a, z, x, u)X n = 8(x - z)(l + z - x) (1 - z). 

n=0 

Repeating the procedure explained above we get 

A u \ soh = -8(x - z )(l + z -x)(l-z) {-m 2 ) l - u [l-y + z 

f 1 d\\- 2u (X 2 z -Xy + I)"" 1 f°° ^r"(l " 
Jo Jo 



l-2« 



X 

-u-1 



2n I ™2\ 1 —" 



z){l + z - x) (1 - z) 2u (-m 2 ) 



7T 1 



Sin TTU U L 



1-y + z 



-l-2u 



(B.21) 



As already mentioned, diagram III does not contribute to the soft function. 

Finally, collecting the contributions of the different diagrams and taking the imaginary 
part (replacing (— by sin7rn) we get: 



Im{A soft } =Im{^f oft +2^ff } = I6 7r ( x - z )(l+z-x)(l-z) 2u {m 2 ) 1 ' 



1-u 



u 



l-y+z 



-l-2u 



(B.22) 



- 32 - 



References 

[I] B. Grinstein, R. P. Springer and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B202 (1988) 138. 
[2] M. Jczabck and J. H. Kuhn, Nucl. Phys. B320 (1989) 20. 

[3] J. Chay, H. Gcorgi and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B247 (1990) 399. 
[4] A. Ali and C. Grcub, Z. Phys. C49 (1991) 431. 

[5] I. I. Y. Bigi, N. G. Uraltsev and A. I. Vainshtcin, Phys. Lett. B293 (1992) 430 [Erratum-ibid. 
B297 (1993) 477] [hep-ph/9207214]. 

[6] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev and A. I. Vainshtcin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 
496 [hcp-ph/9304225]. 

[7] B. Blok, L. Koyrakh, M. A. Shifman and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 3356 
[Erratum-ibid. D50 (1994) 3572] [hcp-ph/9307247]. 

[8] A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 1310 [hep-ph/9308246]. 

[9] M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 3392 [hcp-ph/9311325]. 

[10] A. F. Falk, E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4553 
[hep-ph/9312306]. 

[II] M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4623 [hep-ph/9312311]. 

[12] I. I. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev and A. I. Vainshtein, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1994) 
2467 [hcp-ph/9312359]. 

[13] T. Manncl and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 2037 [hep-ph/9402288]. 

[14] G. P. Korchemsky and G. Sterman, Phys. Lett. B340 (1994) 96 [hep-ph/9407344]. 

[15] A. Kapustin and Z. Ligcti, Phys. Lett. B 355 (1995) 318 [hep-ph/9506201]. 

[16] R. Akhoury and I. Z. Rothstcin, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 2349 [hcp-ph/9512303]. 

[17] A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C7 (1999) 5 [hep-ph/9805303]. 

[18] Z. Ligeti, M. E. Luke, A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034019 
[hep-ph/9903305]. 

[19] F. De Fazio and M. Neubert, JHEP 9906 (1999) 017 [hcp-ph/9905351]. 

[20] A. K. Leibovich and I. Z. Rothstcin, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 074006 [hcp-ph/9907391]. 

[21] A. K. Leibovich, I. Low and I. Z. Rothstcin, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 053006 [hep-ph/9909404] . 

[22] C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 014006 [hcp-ph/0005275]. 

[23] M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B513 (2001) 88 [hcp-ph/0104280]. 

[24] A. K. Leibovich, I. Low and I. Z. Rothstcin, Phys. Lett. B513 (2001) 83 [hcp-ph/0105066]. 

[25] I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17 (2002) 4709 [hcp-ph/0202175]. 

[26] C. W. Bauer and A. V. Manohar, "Shape function effects in B — > X/s gamma and B — > X/u 
1 nu decays," [hep-ph/0312109]. 

[27] S. W. Bosch, B. O. Lange, M. Neubert and G. Paz, "Factorization and shape-function effects 
in inclusive B-meson decays," [hep-ph/0402094]. 



- 33 - 



[28] G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B281 (1987) 310. 

[29] J. C. Collins, D. E. Sopcr and G. Sterman, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5 (1988) 1, 
published in Terturbative QCD', A.H. Mueller, ed. (World Scientific Publ., 1989). 

[30] S. Catani and L. Trcntaduc, Nucl. Phys. B327 (1989) 323; Nucl. Phys. B353 (1991) 183. 

[31] S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B407 (1993) 3. 

[32] G. P. Korchcmsky and G. Marchcsini, Nucl. Phys. B406 (1993) 225 [hep-ph/9210281]; Phys. 
Lett. B313 (1993) 433. 

[33] H. Contopanagos, E. Laenen and G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B484 (1997) 303 
[hcp-ph/9604313]. 

[34] S. Catani, B. R. Webber and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B349 (1991) 635. 

[35] R. Akhoury, M. G. Sotiropoulos and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 3819 
[hcp-ph/9807330]. 

[36] C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114020 
[hcp-ph/0011336]. 

[37] C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 054022 [hep-ph/0109045]. 

[38] J. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 114016 [hep-ph/0201197]. 

[39] M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B643 (2002) 431 
[hep-ph/0206152]. 

[40] R. J. Hill and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B 657 (2003) 229 [hcp-ph/0211018]. 

[41] E. Gardi and J. Rathsman, Nucl. Phys. B609 (2001) 123 [hcp-ph/0103217]. Nucl. Phys. 
B638 (2002) 243 [hep-ph/0201019]. 

[42] Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B469 (1996) 93 
[hep-ph/9512336]. 

[43] M. Beneke, Phys. Rept. 317 (1999) 1; M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, "Renormalons and power 
corrections,", in the Boris Ioffe Festschrift, At the Frontier of Particle Physics / Handbook of 
QCD, cd. M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001), vol. 3, p. 1719 [hep-ph/0010208]. 

[44] E. Gardi and L. Magnea, JHEP 0308 (2003) 030 [hcp-ph/0306094]. 

[45] E. Gardi, Nucl. Phys. B622 (2002) 365 [hep-ph/0108222]. 

[46] E. Gardi, G. P. Korchcmsky, D. A. Ross and S. Tafat, Nucl. Phys. B636 (2002) 385 
[hep-ph/0203161]. 

[47] E. Gardi and R. G. Roberts, Nucl. Phys. B653 (2003) 227 [hep-ph/0210429]. 

[48] M. Cacciari and E. Gardi, "Heavy-quark fragmentation," Nucl. Phys. B664 (2003) 299 
[hep-ph/0301047]. 

[49] R. L. Jaffc and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B412 (1994) 79 [hcp-ph/9306201]. 
[50] P. Nason and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B395 (1997) 355 [hep-ph/9612353]. 
[51] M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245 (1994) 259 [hcp-ph/9306320]. 
[52] M. Neubert, "Heavy-quark effective theory," hep-ph/9610266. 



- 34 - 



[53] A. F. Falk, M. Neubert and M. E. Luke, Nucl. Phys. B 388 (1992) 363 [hep-ph/9204229]. 

[54] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev and A. I. Vainshtcin, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 
2234 [hep-ph/9402360]. 

[55] M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B426 (1994) 301 [hcp-ph/9402364]. 

[56] M. Beneke, V. M. Braun and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 3058 
[hep-ph/9405304]. 

[57] M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B438 (1995) 235 [hcp-ph/9407394]. 

[58] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 4017 
[hep-ph/9704245]. 

[59] G. Grunberg, Phys. Lett. B304 (1993) 183. 

[60] G. P. Korchcmsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A4 (1989) 1257. 

[61] E. Gardi and G. Grunberg, JHEP 9911 (1999) 016 [hep-ph/9908458]. 

[62] G. Martinclli, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B461 (1996) 238 
[hep-ph/9504217]. 

[63] M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B393 (1997) 110 [hep-ph/9610471]. 

[64] G. P. Korchcmsky and G. Stcrman, "Universality of infrared renormalons in hadronic cross 
sections," Contributed to 30th Rencontres de Moriond: QCD and High Energy Hadronic 
Interactions, Mcribcl les Allues, France, 19-25 Mar 1995. Published in Moriond 1995: 
Hadronic:0383-392 (QCD161:R4:1995:V.2) [hep-ph/9505391]. 

[65] Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 404 (1997) 321 [hep-ph/9704298] . 



- 35 -